Article by Ovidiu Ioanițoaia – published on Friday, May 23, 2025, 16:20 / updated on Friday, May 23, 2025 16:20
The case was analyzed within the Disciplinary Commission of the FRF, but no decision was made, the discussions will be resumed on June 2. If the verdict announcement will not be postponed again. The case concerns the complaint filed by the central commission of the referees against Dan Șucu and Viorel Moldovan, the main shareholder and the president of Rapid respectively.
To which the forum led by the Greek Kyros Vassaras reproached their statements after the Rapid-FCSB match, concluded 1-2 on Giulești on April 27 and counting for the 6th stage of the play-off.
Although they were related to the performance of the “central” Radu Petrescu and that of his colleague from the Var room, Ovidiu Hațegan, the two fast officials did not jump the horse. They avoided offending. And when they raised the tone, Moldovan calling the “detestable” arbitration, but specifying that “I would like to stop here because I might get to the commission” (where it came!), They kept the measure. Decency.
Indeed, because everyone is closer to their own shirt, the two insisted what they agreed. That is, they imputed to Petrescu that he closed his eyes to the fault committed in Christiansen, an obvious “tamping”, and Hațegan did not ask the referee on the ground to see the phase and dictate the penalty. However, they failed to say that, earlier, one of the players of their team, Petrila, could be eliminated after a harsh attack on Fl. Tanase. The quickist would have deserved the second yellow card.
Regarding the unannounced intervention of the champion goalkeeper, the arbitration challenges were perfectly right. It was a foul and therefore a penalty, all the specialists have been pronounced in this regard, even everyone! As such, the interventions of Șucu and Moldovan were justified. Their accusations had the basis.
Logic was that Vassaras, approx, show transparency and availability. To dialogue and come up with explanations. Seek to clarify the incriminated phases. To express an official point of view so that football lovers understand if and how much Petrescu and Haţegan were wrong. Eventually, to detect their conversation carried out in the moments.
But the peak of the gossip, instead of putting ashes in his head and admitting that the referees had gateway, the approval and claimed to be demanded and Moldovan, asking the discipline to punish them for talking more than it would have been! In turn, he did not forgive Radu Petrescu and, to teach him mind, to delegate to a semi-final in Cyprus, not to take it, if he led a match in our championship, a thousand and some euros, but to receive, being the badge, UEFA First, a scale of at least 4! To feel the man he was wrong, that he made an unfinished!
Clearly we are witnessing an attempt to intimidate. At the same time, free expression is practiced, it is in power the political policy in the mouth. And those who dare to move in the front must understand what they risk talking. Fines or even suspensions.
